Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Sahu @ Anendra @ Aruvendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 December, 2021
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1 MCRC-63200-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 63200 of 2021
(ARVIND SAHU @ ANENDRA @ ARUVENDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 27-12-2021
Mr. Baldev Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-
State.
This application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for grant of bail to applicant Arvind Sahu alias Anendra alias Aruvendra Sahu in connection with Crime No.110/2021 for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) and 376 IPC, section 5 read with section 6 of the POCSO Act and section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, registered at Police Station Dharkundi, district Satna.
The applicant herein is in judicial custody since 2.12.2021 in the aforementioned case. The allegation against him is of having kidnapped the prosecutrix and thereafter committing rape with her.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is purely a case of consent and the prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age at the time of incident and has read out from the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the prosecutrix which reveals her consent from the very beginning of the statement itself. The prosecutrix states that she was in love with the applicant herein and wanted to marry him but, however, her parents had fixed her marriage elsewhere and, therefore, she asked the applicant herein to take her away from home which the applicant did and then the applicant and the prosecutrix are stated to have got married at Gwarighat in Jabalpur.
Learned counsel for the State, while opposing the application for grant of bail, submits that the consent of the prosecutrix is of no avail as the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of incident.
Be that as it may, looking at facts and circumstances of the case and that the applicant is also only 23 years of age and it is the prosecutrix who herself states in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement that it was she who had asked the Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2021.12.27 17:48:18 IST 2 MCRC-63200-2021 applicant to take her away from home, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant herein shall be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
The jail authorities shall have the applicant checked by the jail doctor to ensure that he is not suffering from the Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) disease and if he is, he shall be sent to the nearest hospital designated by the State for treatment. If not, he shall be transported to his place of residence by the jail authorities.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) V. JUDGE ps Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2021.12.27 17:48:18 IST